Dcit (Tds)1(1), Mumbai vs Accenture Services P.Ltd, Mumbai on 9 November, 2016
8. As could be seen from the above, the Ld.CIT(A) following the
decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of DCIT v.
Accenture Services (P.)
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.35 seconds)Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Lemon Tree Hotels Pvt Ltd on 21 July, 2017
Ltd. v. DCIT (supra)
and also the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v.
Lemon Trees Hotel Pvt. Ltd held that the ESOP expenses are Revenue
expenses and therefore reimbursement of ESOP expenses by the
assessee was deleted . We do not find any infirmity in the order passed
by the Ld.CIT(A), hence the same is sustained.
Shree Global Tradefin Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai on 15 October, 2018
Ltd. v. DCIT (supra)
and also the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v.
Lemon Trees Hotel Pvt. Ltd held that the ESOP expenses are Revenue
expenses and therefore reimbursement of ESOP expenses by the
assessee was deleted . We do not find any infirmity in the order passed
by the Ld.CIT(A), hence the same is sustained.
Reliance Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit Rg 3(3), Mumbai on 31 August, 2017
Ltd (supra) and the Bangalore Bench of the
Tribunal in the case of M/s. Novo Nordisk India (P.)
L & T Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit Cir 2(2), Mumbai on 24 January, 2018
It is
also seen that on identical facts with that of the appellant's, the Hon'ble
jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd.(2010)
TIOL-ITAT-Mumbai and the Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore in the case of Novo Nordisk
4
ITA NO.3636/MUM/2017 (A.Y: 2012-13)
M/s. L&T Infrastructure Finance Co. Ltd
India Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT in ITA No. 1275/Bang/2011 had held that ESOP expenses
were allowable as the conditions required u/s 37 of the Act were duly satisfied. In
these two cases also, the shares of the parent/holding company were issued to
the employees of the subsidiary companies and the subsidiary companies had
paid the difference in the market price and the exercise price of such shares by
their employees to the parent/holding company and claimed the same as ESOP
expenses. It was held that the expenses incurred by the assessee to motivate and
award its employees for their hard work amounted to salary cost of the assessee
and that the expenditure incurred by the assessee for the purpose of business on
employees was allowable expenses.
Biocon Ltd, Bangalore vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltu, ... on 20 April, 2018
"7.3. I have considered the facts of the case and the appellant's submissions.
The appellant company is a subsidiary of M/s L&T Finance Holdings Limited. As
per the Employee Stock Options Scheme established by the Holding Company,
stock options were granted to the employees of the appellant. The actual cost
incurred by the holding company in the form of monetary payments, in respect of
options granted to employees of the Appellant was charged to the statement of
profit and loss during the period and recovered by the holding company. The cost
incurred on the ESOP amounting to Rs.80,86,000/- was debited to the Expenses
on Employee Stock Option Plans account under the head "Employee benefit
expenses" and the amount to be reimbursed to the holding company was credited
to L&T Finance Holdings account. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the ESOP
expenses on the ground that it was capital expenditure as it led to a change in
share capital and also that the expenses were contingent in nature. On the issue
of allowability of ESOP expenses, the Special Bench of the Bangalore Tribunal in
the case of Biocon Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (LTU), Bangalore
[2013] 25 ITR(T) 602 (Bangalore - Trib.) has held that discount on issue of shares
to the employee stock option is allowable deduction in computing the income in
the profit and loss account of business or profession and the same was on account
of ascertained liability and not contingent liability. It was also held that by issuing
shares at discounted price under the scheme ESOP is simply one of the motive to
compensate the employees for their services and is part of the remuneration.
Hdfc Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit 4(1), Mumbai on 16 April, 2018
5. On hearing the Ld. DR and on a perusal of the order of the
Ld.CIT(A), we find that the disallowance was deleted for the reason that
the assessee has its own funds far exceeding the investments. The
Ld.CIT(A) followed the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in
the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., (supra), CIT v. HDFC
Bank Ltd [49 taxmann.com 335] and HDFC Bank Ltd v. DCIT [383 ITR
529]. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the
Ld.CIT(A). This ground is rejected.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 vs Hdfc Bank Ltd. on 5 September, 2014
5. On hearing the Ld. DR and on a perusal of the order of the
Ld.CIT(A), we find that the disallowance was deleted for the reason that
the assessee has its own funds far exceeding the investments. The
Ld.CIT(A) followed the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in
the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., (supra), CIT v. HDFC
Bank Ltd [49 taxmann.com 335] and HDFC Bank Ltd v. DCIT [383 ITR
529]. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the
Ld.CIT(A). This ground is rejected.
1